TraderNik:
No, but you indicated you agree with it.
No, but you indicated you agree with it.
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
The essential components of empiricism is observation and testing.
Every single time I look at life it looks designed, and it also looks designed to nearly everyone else. Every single time. It looks that way to nearly all children, until they are indoctrinated to believe differently. Life and its complexity appears to be designed even to many scientists, though they intellectually convince themselves that it is not designed. Exclude some intellectual theory that rejects naturalness, and the test is repeated constantly...life appears designed.
There is of course no evidence that can verify that the perception of design is false, apart from the prevailing argument from ignorance, that since a designer is not known, it can't be by design.
Is there another situation where something appeared one way, and was then shown later to be different?
Sure.
The observation is the sun moves around the earth, but theory came based on observation of other heavenly bodies that the earth is actually moving, and we now have direct observations from those who went into space.
Do we have similar evidence that the observation of design is false? Have we reached some external point of view outside of our own humanity that could possibly verify non design?
Not in the least. We have theory of non design, theory only, but there are huge holes and unexplained situations in which the non designers stumble and stammer their way around, ignoring those areas where they have no real answer and no real explanation.
If we simply look at mankind, and look to our own experience, there is no explanation for much of human experience on the basis of some so called "evolution" from lower species by a random chance process.
Humans are full of aspects which that do not serve us. Why do we have emotions that are not useful? We certainly have not evolved out of them, just look at people. Essentially suffering from the same emotional afflictions as thousands of years ago.
Why is it that we think in our heads, but feel in our hearts? What evolutionary purpose does this serve? Show me an evolutionary purpose of heartache or love? Explain why much of the brain can be removed with no impact on basic function. The sex drive is strong enough to keep procreation going, yet there are all these emotions that came from where? By accident?
Objective analysis of human beings, their behavior suggests design, not non design, lacking evidence of non design, it seems that the simplest explanation is the right one. What looks designed usually is, unless shown differently.
I would think if someone were actually a scientist, then they would naturally observe the world is designed, and they would then spend more time in search of designer and less time trying to say that one does not exist on the basis of fallacious reasoning...
What is the evolutionary purpose of faith?
We are to accept that some cro-magnum man suddenly was born with all these emotions that helped him to survive, then passed this on to future generations by some random process, because it was more efficient for human development?
Are there any of the atheists out there who don't subscribe to the theory that emotions like faith, hope, love don't simply cloud the intellect, that the intellect is the superior way to live life? Why do humans suffer from addictions where it is not naturally found in most of the animal kingdom?
The essence of common sense is sorely lacking from the side of non design theory...
Every single time I look at life it looks designed, and it also looks designed to nearly everyone else. Every single time. It looks that way to nearly all children, until they are indoctrinated to believe differently. Life and its complexity appears to be designed even to many scientists, though they intellectually convince themselves that it is not designed. Exclude some intellectual theory that rejects naturalness, and the test is repeated constantly...life appears designed.
There is of course no evidence that can verify that the perception of design is false, apart from the prevailing argument from ignorance, that since a designer is not known, it can't be by design.
Is there another situation where something appeared one way, and was then shown later to be different?
Sure.
The observation is the sun moves around the earth, but theory came based on observation of other heavenly bodies that the earth is actually moving, and we now have direct observations from those who went into space.
Do we have similar evidence that the observation of design is false? Have we reached some external point of view outside of our own humanity that could possibly verify non design?
Not in the least. We have theory of non design, theory only, but there are huge holes and unexplained situations in which the non designers stumble and stammer their way around, ignoring those areas where they have no real answer and no real explanation.
If we simply look at mankind, and look to our own experience, there is no explanation for much of human experience on the basis of some so called "evolution" from lower species by a random chance process.
Humans are full of aspects which that do not serve us. Why do we have emotions that are not useful? We certainly have not evolved out of them, just look at people. Essentially suffering from the same emotional afflictions as thousands of years ago.
Why is it that we think in our heads, but feel in our hearts? What evolutionary purpose does this serve? Show me an evolutionary purpose of heartache or love? Explain why much of the brain can be removed with no impact on basic function. The sex drive is strong enough to keep procreation going, yet there are all these emotions that came from where? By accident?
Objective analysis of human beings, their behavior suggests design, not non design, lacking evidence of non design, it seems that the simplest explanation is the right one. What looks designed usually is, unless shown differently.
I would think if someone were actually a scientist, then they would naturally observe the world is designed, and they would then spend more time in search of designer and less time trying to say that one does not exist on the basis of fallacious reasoning...
What is the evolutionary purpose of faith?
We are to accept that some cro-magnum man suddenly was born with all these emotions that helped him to survive, then passed this on to future generations by some random process, because it was more efficient for human development?
Are there any of the atheists out there who don't subscribe to the theory that emotions like faith, hope, love don't simply cloud the intellect, that the intellect is the superior way to live life? Why do humans suffer from addictions where it is not naturally found in most of the animal kingdom?
The essence of common sense is sorely lacking from the side of non design theory...
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
What is the evolutionary purpose of faith?
Faith is a tool made by the designer to make his designs seem real. The design is held together by faith.
The good news is that the design is not real. Neither are the tools used to make it. When this is realized, faith can be used to unmake the design.
Thus, the original purpose of faith was to deceive. Evolution was part of the deception. Faith in evolution was part of the deception.
The "design" of the design was to deceive. Deceive who? The designer. Faith placed in truth undeceives.
Mountains are held in place by the faith of the designer. But faith in the unreal cannot make them real. Faith turned away from the design toward reality can move mountains.
Faith, perception and projection are the three prime tools used to make the design seem real. Each tool is used in turning the tables on the design, until they are no longer needed, and the design disappears into the nothingness from which it came.
Therefore, intelligent design is not creationism.
Jesus
Quote from Teleologist:
No, but you indicated you agree with it.
So what? If you provide the data you claim, and the data turn out to actually imply the existence of a designer, my whole argument is blown out of the water. My position is that there is no data which supports the inference. If the data does exist, then it is of no consequence 'who designed the designer'. I know that the Sistine Chapel was designed but I have no questions about 'who designed the designer'. The fact that it was designed has been proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact of its design is enough to blow me away, and it would be the same thing if I saw convincing evidence that the first cells were designed.
The whole question about 'who designed the designer' is separate from this claim you made about having empirical data which supports the inference that the first cells were designed.
I ask you again - please provide either a summary of the data which you mention or provide a link.
It seems to me that if the data do in fact support your inference, you wouldn't be so hesitant to share the source with us?
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Humans are full of aspects which that do not serve us.
Yes. Mostly because humans aren't real. But mainly because the ideas that project the body are not valid and so don't serve you. The ideas are the antithesis of what you are.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Why do we have emotions that are not useful? Essentially suffering from the same emotional afflictions as thousands of years ago.
Guilt is not useful because it has no basis. It is self-accusation at deep, buried levels of the mind. There, it churns with red-hot intensity. Bodies arise as a response to guilt, to put it out of the mind and to buffer it from the heat. It suffers from it from birth to death. It dies from it as a way to solve the conflict in the mind...seeing death as a relief. Repeat ad nauseam.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Why is it that we think in our heads, but feel in our hearts?
Brains don't actually do any thinking. The body is a deception device. Mind thinks, brains think they think. Mind sees, eyes think they see. Mind hears, ears think they hear. Mind births, bodies think they give birth. Mind feels, bodies think they feel. The body is an outpicturing of the mind, a symbol of it's idea about itself.
A guilty mind makes the body feel pain. Otherwise, it could feel no pain at all. Pleasure is also sensed by mind. Both pain and pleasure make the body seem real, forging your identity as a body. The body is neutral and does nothing on it's own. It ages and dies according to orders given it by mind.
What kind of mind? A mind that does not really think, since none of it's ideas are true. There is another part of the mind that thinks true thoughts, buried yet deeper. Spirit thinks with it. Mind apart from spirit thinks through bodies. It's thoughts are conflicted as well as it's feelings. Death solves the conflict for a conflicted mind. Truth solves the conflict for a sane mind.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Explain why much of the brain can be removed with no impact on basic function. The sex drive is strong enough to keep procreation going, yet there are all these emotions that came from where? By accident?
The brain doesn't do the thinking. The sex drive is strong enough to keep an illusion going for a long time. The emotions, like the body, are manipulated by a rogue aspect of the mind. Always, it is the mind that is doing the feeling.
None of this is by accident. There are no accidents. It is by design.
Jesus
it just doesn't... even if it does to you o design-victim and closet ID-pusher, and to nearly everybody in your little sanitized worldQuote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
The essential components of empiricism is observation and testing.
Every single time I look at life it looks designed, and it also looks designed to nearly everyone else. ... interminable blah
Quote from trading4fun:
What are you trying to say. Do you think your comment is enlightened? If you could do any mathematical analysis you would be aware of how retarded your beliefs are. I bet you have trouble with erections.
Do the math. You made the world you see. What is so strange about that? Why would you think that is arrogance? God made it not. Of this you can be sure. What can He know of the ephemeral, the sinful and the guilty, the afraid, the suffering and lonely, and the mind that lives within a body that must die? If you think this you accuse Him of insanity, to think he made a world where such things seem to have reality. He is not mad.
Your alternative? To say that the world made you? That's laughable. Were you made by an erection?
Jesus