Intelligent Design is not creationism

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from jem:

Nik when Davies Greenstein and Hoyle say there is the appearance of intelligent design

We have shown in this thread that the faithful here often rely on appeal to authority. This is understandable since the kind of mindset which results in faith in the unseeable, unknowable and unprovable is by definition the same type that would be open to having others tell them what to think. Appeal to authority has no effect upon the rationalist.

It is no surprise to me that some physicists might have a faith in God. All kinds of people have a faith in God, and that list includes some very smart people. The fact that they are smart and are accomplished in the hard sciences does not mean that they couldn't also have religious faith.

The title of this thread reflects its central assertion, and this has been totally shot down. The ID/Creationists here were unable to differentiate between ID and Creation. They were unable to show any proof of ID whatsoever. They were reduced to claiming that they had 'empirical data' which supported their assertions; when asked for a reference, they refused to give it. Obviously they had nothing of the kind.

It was revealed that defenders of ID in this thread were claiming to have read certain authors when in fact they had never read them, but were simply doing Google searches and using the cut and pastes that resulted to support their arguments. kjkent even contacted one of those who the faithful were quoting and the individual said that his work had nothing to do with supporting ID.

It was revealed that a few of the ID'ers here believe that the earth was seeded with life by intelligent aliens. This is what they mean by ID.

All the rest of the ID arguments are indistinguishable from the Creation arguments. They are pure assertion with no proof whatsoever to support them. The ID'ers here at first claimed that they could provide scientific proof that ID was operant. Then, in a bizarre twist, they started deriding the scientific method which has resulted in our current conceptions re: the origin of life on earth.

Thread closed.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

A point that is of course lost on the atheistic ET evolution defenders, is the very nature of intelligence.

If we were to take them seriously, then what is considered intelligence from their perspective (mankind's intelligence of course, human intelligence) then this so called intelligence would be nothing other than the accidental unplanned byproduct of billions of random ignorant chance evolutions, so intelligence itself would be nothing beyond some accidental condition. It is only a condition of pure ignorant luck that the human mind can grasp the developments of the hard sciences, the immutable laws of nature, mathematics, essentially it is a complete fluke that the human being "evolved" to the point of grasping the mechanics of the universe to the degree that we have understood these mechanics.

Now, I would really like to see intelligence spring from accidental random happening...not not the way so many of the ET crowd were likely procreated out of some drunken night with a bimbo...but intelligence coming from non intelligence at in a series of unplanned unintelligent ignorant moves.

I dare say it would be easy to prove that intelligence could come from ignorance...

Simply program one computer to win at chess, knowing all the possible moves, the AI computers that can challenge (an example being Big Blue computer) and often win against the greatest chess (human) players in the world.

Then pit this intelligently programmed computer to play another computer that makes all moves entirely at a random, from a level of ignorant unplanned programming.

Let's see how long, if ever, the computer that is programmed for pure ignorant chance moves will take to beat the intelligent computer.

The hubris of course is that the ET atheists think that their intelligence is the superior intelligence, but of course this conclusion is ultimately derived from a condition they think is the product of random ignorant chance.

The absurdity of their position is extremely obvious, but it takes deprogramming of the atheistic ego to be able to see it...

Wow, where to start with this mess? First off, the bizarre sentence construction in this post, composed by a native English speaker, indicates the messy thinking that underlies it.

Let us examine this bit of obfuscation

It is only a condition of pure ignorant luck that the human mind can grasp the developments of the hard sciences, the immutable laws of nature, mathematics, essentially it is a complete fluke that the human being "evolved" to the point of grasping the mechanics of the universe to the degree that we have understood these mechanics.

Is this supposed to be an argument in support of ID? It is nothing of the kind. It is simple ad hominem. This entire passage can be summarized as 'You guys are nuts'. There is not even a hint of a point being made here.

Now, I would really like to see intelligence spring from accidental random happening...not not the way so many of the ET crowd were likely procreated out of some drunken night with a bimbo...but intelligence coming from non intelligence at in a series of unplanned unintelligent ignorant moves.

Well.. let us look at sub-atomic physics. In particle accelerators, physicists smash two particles together. One would think that the resulting matter would bear some relation to the constituent parts of the particles which were smashed together. Of course, nature is way too complex to make such assumptions. In the unforgettable words of Richard Feynman "It is as if you smash a blender and a hairdryer together and in the rubble you find a Volkswagen and Zebra' [forgive me if the quote is an approximation]. It is inexplicable. In this case, matter organizes itself out of a chaotic state.

Nature is stranger than people like Z, with their faith-informed narrow-mindedness, can ever conceive.

The hubris of course is that the ET atheists think that their intelligence is the superior intelligence, but of course this conclusion is ultimately derived from a condition they think is the product of random ignorant chance.

This is the absolute kicker! It is the rationalist that exhibits hubris? More hubris than saying 'You must believe in something that I say you should believe in, something that you cannot see, cannot touch, cannot smell, cannot prove, something for which no evidence exists'?

When did we say our intelligence was 'superior'? 'Superior' to what, for goodness sake? Do not hold your breath for an answer to this question. The faithmongers would have to reveal too much in answering it.

The ultimate hubris is to claim that we should remake our society 'in a manner more consistent with theistic ideals'.

 

[I am...]

Quote from traderNik:

We have shown in this thread that the faithful here often rely on appeal to authority. This is understandable since the kind of mindset which results in faith in the unseeable, unknowable and unprovable is by definition the same type that would be open to having others tell them what to think. Appeal to authority has no effect upon the rationalist.

All the rest of the ID arguments are indistinguishable from the Creation arguments. They are pure assertion with no proof whatsoever to support them. Thread closed.

One idea you and the creationists have in common is the idea of external origin. Whether it is a creator, or whether it is an amoeba on steroids, you think yourselves made by something else. Those who are baffled share the same insistence that you do not make yourselves.

But you are self-made men...the weakest link in a long chain of faith-based decisions. That you could make yourselves, is the basis of the faith that makes you. Thus, you are beliefs, along with space and time.

You've made it appear as though you did not. And in this thread, the appearances are coming to the light of reason as you scramble to declare victory and close the thread.

Faith was invented to make yourselves something you are not. Faith is abnormal among your original attributes, for knowledge does not require it. Faith is needed to build a world full of unknowns. Such is this world.

Faith was applied at a level you are not aware of. Yet you are its effect, as is the world you see. Because it seems solid, you think it is not a product of belief. And yet it is...and it is what you believed. Having believed it, you now "see" it.

You see what you have believed. But because believing is abnormal among your original attributes, so is "seeing". Knowledge does not have use for eyes. Eyes are for seeing what you believe. Evidence of what you believe is what you see.

When you believe in illusions, you see its symbols. Such is the world...nothing but symbols. Since the world was made by belief, you can use it to unmake it. When faith is applied to truth, you can remove mountains.

When you return to your original condition, you have no need for eyes, ears, feet, mountains, belief or faith. These are not natural to a Son of God.

Those turning faith toward truth will see another world. The truth is within all of you, obscured by erroneous ideas about who you are. Looking within first, you see what you are choosing to believe about yourself.

You have made everything your eyes tell you is "out there" from what is believed about yourself inside. Looking deeper inside to the truth within, you see an entirely different world "out there". Blessed are those who, having not yet seen, believe in this world, for they shall see it.

This is a temporary world vision preparing you for reassimilation into reality. It is still perceived, and perception will not last because it is an invention and not a creation.

You see solid earth seeming to be millions of years old, and note that you were "born" recently. What a joke! These are the childish games of gods. Its all set up to look like you had nothing to do with it. Yet it is your strange faith that made it. Rather, it is faithlessness.

Faith, effectively applied to truth, erases what you've made entirely. You don't want it erased yet because the fun is not yet over for you.

Preceding faith is desire. So there is a connection between what you believe, what you see, and what you want. Is it any wonder you are reticent to consider reason when it is in front of you?

One thing is certain, what the Son of God believes can never be destroyed. Herein is the good news for you. As long as you believe in the world, you will see it. So its still party time for the living dead. But you are like ghosts who still think they live in some old house. You are not really here.

Realize that the Son of God is one badass, self-deceiving shapeshifter and you start to get the picture. You really don't want to mess with him. Better to realize you are part of him, and in joining him, you will create reality on a scale so vast you have no words to describe. As they say, "you ain't seen nothing yet".

Jesus

 

[jem]

Quote from traderNik:

We have shown in this thread that the faithful here often rely on appeal to authority. This is understandable since the kind of mindset which results in faith in the unseeable, unknowable and unprovable is by definition the same type that would be open to having others tell them what to think. Appeal to authority has no effect upon the rationalist.

It is no surprise to me that some physicists might have a faith in God. All kinds of people have a faith in God, and that list includes some very smart people. The fact that they are smart and are accomplished in the hard sciences does not mean that they couldn't also have religious faith.

The title of this thread reflects its central assertion, and this has been totally shot down. The ID/Creationists here were unable to differentiate between ID and Creation. They were unable to show any proof of ID whatsoever. They were reduced to claiming that they had 'empirical data' which supported their assertions; when asked for a reference, they refused to give it. Obviously they had nothing of the kind.

It was revealed that defenders of ID in this thread were claiming to have read certain authors when in fact they had never read them, but were simply doing Google searches and using the cut and pastes that resulted to support their arguments. kjkent even contacted one of those who the faithful were quoting and the individual said that his work had nothing to do with supporting ID.

It was revealed that a few of the ID'ers here believe that the earth was seeded with life by intelligent aliens. This is what they mean by ID.

All the rest of the ID arguments are indistinguishable from the Creation arguments. They are pure assertion with no proof whatsoever to support them. The ID'ers here at first claimed that they could provide scientific proof that ID was operant. Then, in a bizarre twist, they started deriding the scientific method which has resulted in our current conceptions re: the origin of life on earth.

Thread closed.

I was the guy having the argument and I was directly quoting Susskind from interviews and articles about his book. You do not have to read the book if you quote the author from an inteview.


By the way When challenged KJkent your hero, refused to say Susskind denied the existence of the quotes, nor did he deny the plain English. Kj sounded like a little child saying he emailed the author and the author said he understood the subject? Again, when challenged KJ never said the author said I was misrepresenting him. KJ would not because he knows I would have shot an email over to Susskind.

However that is not the point. And I am not appealing to authority in the negative sense.

I am pointing out that you do not have the qualifications to discuss this subject. You are not a highly qualified physicist or a learned amatur. But, some scientists are qualified. And of those qualified sceintists - some say the earth appears designed.

I gave you the names and quotes from some of the top physicists i the world.

Now argue with them, explain whey they are wrong. or drop your childish rants.

 

[jem]

I wrote earth - when I should have said universe - three sentences up.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from jem:

learned amatur. ...qualified sceintists ...physicists i the world. ...
explain whey ...

Oh yes, I remember you now. Aren't you the guy who was also claiming to be an attorney?

Hmmm... strange. Most attorneys would understand the value of proofreading.

As I said before, thread closed. You should just hope kjkent doesn't come back around to kick your ass one more time. That last ass-kicking he gave you was ugly, and it caused you to run away and hide for a good long time.

 

[jem]

the work product of a dope... when challenged change the subject to spell checking.

Note your hero KJ claimed to be a lawyer but backed down when ask to prove it. Did you ever wonder why someone so verbose suddenly lost his facility for typing.

That guy was wrong on multiple issues and turned into a little fairy when his mistakes were highlighted.

 

[stu]

Tele,
Why don't you just take a basic mildly critical look through all this cut and paste stuff you rely so much upon

Quote from Teleologist:

We begin by asking whether or not life itself owes its origin to design through intelligent intervention. To help us answer the question, we can look to examples other than life: things that are designed through intelligent intervention and things that are not designed through intelligent intervention.

Ok Let's look at what he says to look at. Things A) designed through intelligent intervention and things that are B) not designed through intelligent intervention.

Quote from Teleologist:

More specifically, we can look to engineering on one hand, and physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology, and astronomy on the other hand. Then, we simply ask into which of these hands is life a better fit. It is my position that life better fits in the class of things known to be designed through intelligent intervention.

But hang on, he just said let's look at things A) designed through intelligent intervention, and things that are B) not designed through intelligent intervention.

Already he has completely lost his way. Diverted onto a side road into things that are ONLY to do with what we know are intelligent intervention.
Engineering physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology, and astronomy are all definitions of intelligent human intervention, designed to intervene and explain things NOT known to be designed through intelligent intervention. Is this dude thinking any of this through .

Quote from Teleologist:

(1) The study of life is much more like the study of engineering than any other field of science. This is clearly seen from the fact that teleological language and concepts are very important in biology and engineering, but essentially missing from the other fields of science. If life is designed, this makes much sense.

If he were a planet studying engineering, then that wouldn't make much sense. He would be stating the diametrically opposite to that. From the perspective of living sentient being, this dude probably finds it real hard to understand or accept there could well be no end purpose to the Universe and everything of it other than that of existence itself. In those circumstances as a planet, he would not think. teleological language and concepts too important in biology or engineering as much as in physics and astronomy.He is not thinking conceptually from any other perspectives. Or being closed minded is another way of describing his approach.

Quote from Teleologist:

(2) Over the last few decades, the more we have learned about cell biology and molecular biology, the greater has grown the distance between chemistry and biology. Biological states are high information states and biological processes depend crucially on these high information states.

What information? What codes.Is he illuding to DNA because that is not a code other than by human design. A reaction does not necessarily require information.. A reaction may just as well occur because it does, because it can,.. or not occur, because it doesn't and can't.. The universe can be full of things that can't and don't as well as full of things that can and do. No information as a necessity.

Because the things understood to be intelligently designed do need reactions to occur for them to work can be viewed as an unnatural shortcut.

That's why natural stuff can be natural. No intervention. Intervention = unnatural. Do these creationist doodes really want to view the Universe as something which is unnatural.. They sure sound like they do.

Quote from Teleologist:

It is not a question of merely marveling at the design of life, it is about wanting to better understand why such designs are so much superior to ours.

How about because they are originally completely Natural and not designed.. Hello, now why didn't he think of that. That would be something B) not designed through intelligent intervention.... and it wasall the time there, right under his nose.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

"How about because they are originally completely Natural and not designed.. "

I love this, really love this. The mind of a true scientist at work.

Things are because, the way they are. Why? Because they are that way naturally. What is naturally? Well, that means that things are the way they are, you know, naturally....I mean to say that nature itself is the cause, well not really a cause, but it is natural for things to be the way they are. Now, don't ask me the cause of nature itself, or why things are they way they are naturally, we just have to accept this as a given, you know, that is the natural way to look at things...they just are, you know, naturally, by themselves. Ya, that's the ticket! It is all naturalism, and we don't really have to dig any deeper than that. We don't need to understand why nature is programmed the way it is.

Ooooops, did I just say nature was programmed? Well, scratch that. Nature is not programmed, in could not be programmed because then there would have to be a programmer, and damned if I don't see a programmer, so well, it is not programmed, simply because that would be unnatural, and nature is natural and that is all you really need to know to practice naturalism, i.e. faith in naturalism as nature, as in completely natural, you know, like the way things are, natural, ya know?

Quote from stu:

Tele,
Why don't you just take a basic mildly critical look through all this cut and paste stuff you rely so much upon


Ok Let's look at what he says to look at. Things A) designed through intelligent intervention and things that are B) not designed through intelligent intervention.



But hang on, he just said let's look at things A) designed through intelligent intervention, and things that are B) not designed through intelligent intervention.

Already he has completely lost his way. Diverted onto a side road into things that are ONLY to do with what we know are intelligent intervention.
Engineering physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology, and astronomy are all definitions of intelligent human intervention, designed to intervene and explain things NOT known to be designed through intelligent intervention. Is this dude thinking any of this through .




If he were a planet studying engineering, then that wouldn't make much sense. He would be stating the diametrically opposite to that. From the perspective of living sentient being, this dude probably finds it real hard to understand or accept there could well be no end purpose to the Universe and everything of it other than that of existence itself. In those circumstances as a planet, he would not think. teleological language and concepts too important in biology or engineering as much as in physics and astronomy.He is not thinking conceptually from any other perspectives. Or being closed minded is another way of describing his approach.What information? What codes.Is he illuding to DNA because that is not a code other than by human design. A reaction does not necessarily require information.. A reaction may just as well occur because it does, because it can,.. or not occur, because it doesn't and can't.. The universe can be full of things that can't and don't as well as full of things that can and do. No information as a necessity.

Because the things understood to be intelligently designed do need reactions to occur for them to work can be viewed as an unnatural shortcut.

That's why natural stuff can be natural. No intervention. Intervention = unnatural. Do these creationist doodes really want to view the Universe as something which is unnatural.. They sure sound like they do.

How about because they are originally completely Natural and not designed.. Hello, now why didn't he think of that. That would be something B) not designed through intelligent intervention.... and it wasall the time there, right under his nose.

 

[stu]

Asking yourself daft questions and answering them with daft answers is ..well.. just plain daft. But then you're a troll and a troll is basically daft.
You don’t like natural because.. why exactly? You think there is what…something not quite natural about it?