Bluud,
ID is not about proving the existence of God. Your atheistic rant is irrelevant to this thread.
ID is not about proving the existence of God. Your atheistic rant is irrelevant to this thread.
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
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
Answer the question. When (as in "under what circumstances") does G=G+1 hold?
We are discussing whether it's possible to go beyond equality with God. "+1", in this discussion, is an idea. I'm assuming you've read the discussion so far, rather than pulling some variable out of a calc book in order to trap me.
Therefore,
It holds:
Under a spell.
Under the influence.
Under a rock.
Under a bushel.
Without understanding.
Under fire.
Under marshal law.
Under the gun.
Six feet under.
Under the sun.
Under a bad moon rising.
Under the stars and stripes.
Under your skin.
Two exceptions:
It holds over my dead body.
It loses it's grip under a Bhodi tree.
Jesus
Quote from bluud:
In the end my personal belief is this; there is a God, he is a loser, a total loser, worthless and cheap, trying to get rid of the pain of feeling void and worthless he turned to mankind to have them obey him by force of future pain and possible future pleasure.
When people die they will end up somewhere, somewhere even worse than this world, something between real and illusion, they won't have a brain to think but only a mind that holds all the past memories, putting them in a hell like state of mind and existence.
It really sucks to be human, but there is no surprise in this, since it sucks to be God too, why else is he so sick minded.
And by the way what does God have to do with the creation of everything, just because he claims he did, doesn't mean he really did do it, I think he's a real liar too, but even if he is right, he is still a loser.
***********************************************************************
Welcome to Gilbert + 1's world.
Jesus
Quote from I am...:
We are discussing whether it's possible to go beyond equality with God. "+1", in this discussion, is an idea. I'm assuming you've read the discussion so far, rather than pulling some variable out of a calc book in order to trap me.
Therefore,
It holds:
Under a spell.
Under the influence.
Under a rock.
Under a bushel.
Without understanding.
Under fire.
Under marshal law.
Under the gun.
Six feet under.
Under the sun.
Under a bad moon rising.
Under the stars and stripes.
Two exceptions:
It holds over my dead body.
It loses it's grip under a Bhodi tree.
Jesus
You're really thick.
I was trying to give you a clue on how to get out of the Gilbert+1 dilemma. You think it was a trap. You have no depth in your thought.
Quote from Teleologist:
Bluud,
ID is not about proving the existence of God. Your atheistic rant is irrelevant to this thread.
ya I realized that from your posts, but ID is just a cover up, like for those who don't want to sound like loosers saying God here God there
and then among them are those who say; the universe has a mind of it's own ... it's like "so what", if it didn't it couldn't have been worse ...
anyhow there are probably billion different versions of ID theories you'll probably like this one; http://www.theosophy.org/Blavatsky/Secret Doctrine/SD-I/SDVolume_I.htm, specially now that these days people are embarrassed to bring up God's name but at the same time they can't let go of their imaginary friend, so they build these philosophies that maybe fill his void in their mind
================================================
did you even read my posts? I stated if ID is not referring to any person or any source, then it's part of the random things that happen in and outside of this universe, I hope you get what I mean this time?!
second there is nothing atheistic about my posts I only stated God is a loser, that doesn't make me an atheist, I even believe in his prophets but I think those jerks were his b***hs
********************************************************************
last but not least OK ID exists (and exactly as you describe it), how is this to change our life? what are we to do now? Are you trying to teach us something that knowing and not-knowing it will not change anything???
Quote from 2cents:
i know u don't get it and u deserve compassion etc but... there is no scientific argument for ID... thats where the buck stops...
That is the end result of this entire thread. The claims of ID/Creationists that ID/Creation is a scientifically viable theory have been utterly demolished. The ID/Creationists here have been reduced to pure appeal to authority, and it has been shown that even in this they are sometimes acting dishonestly in the sense that they have not actually read the authors they cite.
ID/Creation is a faith-based belief system which does not belong anywhere but within the privacy of one's home or one's place of worship. The concept of design necessarily implies a designer, and there can be only two 'designers' of life on earth - either God or an alien life form. Any other theory is not 'design'.
ID/Creationists intend to remake what they see as morbidly secular Western society in a manner 'more consistent with theistic ideals'. This intrusion is unwanted. Even the majority of those who profess a faith in God (by some accounts, over 70% of all North Americans) are against the intrusion of this faith-based agendum into the life of a society which is secular in its public face.
2 cents:
If ID is unscientific then the blind watchmaker hypothesis is also unscientific. One is just the flip-side of the other. Let's hear your argument that the evolutionary process is entirely non-teleological. Then we can evaluate how scientific it is.
I know u don't get it and u deserve compassion etc but... there is no scientific argument for ID... thats where the buck stops...
If ID is unscientific then the blind watchmaker hypothesis is also unscientific. One is just the flip-side of the other. Let's hear your argument that the evolutionary process is entirely non-teleological. Then we can evaluate how scientific it is.
Quote from Teleologist:
If ID is unscientific then the blind watchmaker hypothesis is also unscientific. One is just the flip-side of the other. Let's hear your argument that the evolutionary process is entirely non-teleological. Then we can evaluate how scientific it is.
You just don't get it, do you?
There is no "blind watchmaker hypothesis." If there were, it would be unscientific just as the ID.
There are two catogeries of problems in science. Those that are understood (meaning we know how these things work) do not require invocation of designers. Those that are not understood (meaning we don't yet know how these things work), you could invoke ID to explain them. But then they will remain not understood forever.
Example, why does the earth orbit the sun in an elliptic orbit? We now understand it is because of the gravity. We also understand that the gravity is due to the space-time curvature induced by the mass of the sun.
But before Newton, would it have been equally plausible to assume that the orbit of the earth was designed? Can you imagine where that theory would leave us today?
It has been proven scientifically, that the random mutations are the innate driving force of evolution (see for example, the neutral theory of molecular evolution). Whether or not random events can explain the origin of life, is yet to be understood. Substituting the ID for the scientific understanding, would forever prevent us from the understanding.
BTW, the neutral theory of molecular evolution was once considered to be "anti Darwin." But scientists had no problem accepting this theory once it's shown to be scientifically plausible. It's a slap in the face of those who claim that scientists hold on to the Darwinism dogma due to prejudice. It's also ironic that the traditional Darwinism did not accept "random ignorant chance" as the driving force of evolution, much in agreement with z10. That only changed when the neutral theory, which was "anti Darwinism," was proposed. In this regard, z10 is really a fossil.
James Bond 3rd:
You're the one that doesn't get it. It is the Darwinist position that the evolutionary process is devoid of design. Richard Dawkins refers to evolution as the blind watchmaker because in his words it is a "blind, unconscious, automatic process which which we know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life....it has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker."[Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1987), ix.]
Darwinism is an anti-teleological theory. It's a theory whose purpose is to deny the inference of design.
ID is an alternative perspective on evolution. It contends that evolution and design can co-exist. Things can be designed to evolve. Evolution can be designed. Evolution can be used by design.
You just don't get it, do you?
There is no "blind watchmaker hypothesis." If there were, it would be unscientific just as the ID.
You're the one that doesn't get it. It is the Darwinist position that the evolutionary process is devoid of design. Richard Dawkins refers to evolution as the blind watchmaker because in his words it is a "blind, unconscious, automatic process which which we know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life....it has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker."[Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1987), ix.]
Darwinism is an anti-teleological theory. It's a theory whose purpose is to deny the inference of design.
ID is an alternative perspective on evolution. It contends that evolution and design can co-exist. Things can be designed to evolve. Evolution can be designed. Evolution can be used by design.