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
stu
Teleologist
stu
They are all Designs, they were all "designed", by nature, you know, as shapes we find recognizable and assign names to.
One reason why I would say intelligent design in nature is an illusion, is because nature (the whole "design" process) observably produces shape and design itself, from the simplest of basic components in large amounts of time, to include any changes that can survive its surroundings and circumstance. That is the observable "designer" and "designing" process in play.
As already mentioned before. Design itself is an illusion as far as it is subjective. You have already stated, you don't see a mud puddle as being designed , yet it has all the vast complexity of a Universe behind its very existence.
So do you.
How come you need "design" and the mud puddle not? You think you are THAT special to need designing? Do you think you are something that peculiar - nature couldn't produce/design (shape) naturally?
We do have proof of a designer designing, of designers designing. What more do you actually want? You just don't want them to be THOSE PARTICULAR designers?
There is a well proven, valuable, useful, reliable, method for doing such things.
It's called the Scientific Method.
Problem for inferring such design is, the inference keeps falling over before the starting gun even gets fired.
Goblins in the forest inference - has exactly the same problem.
The problem is one of trying to give credence for ID by repeatedly churning contrived statements that are not true, which generally emanate from the wobbly planet of Behe and Dembski.
We do detect what you are calling design, and the designer is detectable.
Common antecedence from 3 basic separate organisms.
Been shown, its called Evolution. It's scientific, fact / hypothesis(real hypothesis), and scientific therory, all working, observable, testable.
Are you going to do - denial/ deceit/ lie - with that too?
Tele, just a thought,
ID would anyway mean the Universe was artificial. According to ID, the ID'er would itself need a designer. There would be no purely natural beginnings. A universe as majestic and wonderful as this, consisting of nothing more than artificial flavorings and colorings put there by something or other which by ID "logic" , couldn't even design itself until perched upon an infinite stack of turtles, all the way down.
- there is no intelligent designer observed, found, present...
Teleologist
- Uhh yeah, we don't observe a designer designing, if we did, then ID would be a fact, and not an inference.
stu
- Uhh yeah, we do observe "designer designing". We see lots of "designers designing".
Do you mean that last quote in some kind of rhetorical way? Because if you don't think that observing "designers designing " has gotten anything to do with design, then I suggest you get involved in some basic rationality classes before you go any further.Quote from Teleologist:
What's that got to do with anything?
No, Wrong. We observe shape patterns which are recognizable and to which labels are then assigned . Round, square, leaf shape, fractal, tree shape, mud puddle.Quote from Teleologist:
It is your claim that the appearance of intelligent design in nature is an illusion because we don't observe an intelligent designer designing things in nature, right?
They are all Designs, they were all "designed", by nature, you know, as shapes we find recognizable and assign names to.
One reason why I would say intelligent design in nature is an illusion, is because nature (the whole "design" process) observably produces shape and design itself, from the simplest of basic components in large amounts of time, to include any changes that can survive its surroundings and circumstance. That is the observable "designer" and "designing" process in play.
As already mentioned before. Design itself is an illusion as far as it is subjective. You have already stated, you don't see a mud puddle as being designed , yet it has all the vast complexity of a Universe behind its very existence.
So do you.
How come you need "design" and the mud puddle not? You think you are THAT special to need designing? Do you think you are something that peculiar - nature couldn't produce/design (shape) naturally?
We can see designers designing. So then the above quote is your response to your own wrong version of my argument.Quote from Teleologist:
My response is that we don't need to see something being designed in order to suspect it was designed. If we could see a designer designing we would have absolute proof of design not just a suspicion of design. For you there is no middle ground between no evidence of design and absolute proof of design. That's the core of our disagreement.
We do have proof of a designer designing, of designers designing. What more do you actually want? You just don't want them to be THOSE PARTICULAR designers?
Quote from Teleologist:
The bottom line is this. Could something be designed without there being evidence of the designers? Of course.
The issue is then how we would go about inferring such design.
There is a well proven, valuable, useful, reliable, method for doing such things.
It's called the Scientific Method.
Problem for inferring such design is, the inference keeps falling over before the starting gun even gets fired.
Goblins in the forest inference - has exactly the same problem.
Then why are you trying to make ID sound any more important than Fairies or Unicorns. It isn't. They too reside with the same non-consensus, in the same non scientific realm, as ID does.Quote from Teleologist:
Does the ability to accurately infer the design mean we should all be able to reach a consensus such that all ID critics would concede? No.
Quote from Teleologist:
The problem is one of detecting design in a reality where the designer is undetectable. Attempts to short-circuit this question by insisting the designer be detectable is question begging. But keep in mind that all the common ancestors behind common descent are also undetectable, as are the selection pressures and selection coefficients behind these transitions. Yet we infer common ancestors and selection pressures because things look evolved and such proposals seem to be fruitful guides. There is no reason why an ID theorist should play by different rules.
The problem is one of trying to give credence for ID by repeatedly churning contrived statements that are not true, which generally emanate from the wobbly planet of Behe and Dembski.
We do detect what you are calling design, and the designer is detectable.
Common antecedence from 3 basic separate organisms.
Been shown, its called Evolution. It's scientific, fact / hypothesis(real hypothesis), and scientific therory, all working, observable, testable.
Are you going to do - denial/ deceit/ lie - with that too?
Tele, just a thought,
ID would anyway mean the Universe was artificial. According to ID, the ID'er would itself need a designer. There would be no purely natural beginnings. A universe as majestic and wonderful as this, consisting of nothing more than artificial flavorings and colorings put there by something or other which by ID "logic" , couldn't even design itself until perched upon an infinite stack of turtles, all the way down.
Stu wrote:
Where? Where? You keep saying this but you refuse to back it up. Show where Dembski and Behe incorporate theology into their hypotheses. You are making a fool of yourself for all to see.
I (more lately) and others showed you where Dembski and Behe incorporate theology into their bullshit, err "hypotheses" .
Where? Where? You keep saying this but you refuse to back it up. Show where Dembski and Behe incorporate theology into their hypotheses. You are making a fool of yourself for all to see.
Denial, deceit, lie.Quote from Teleologist:
Where? Where?
You keep saying this but you refuse to back it up. Show where Dembski and Behe incorporate theology into their hypotheses.
You are making a fool of yourself for all to see.
...So there is this woman at home holding a party on the sun deck of her pool. A couple dozen invited party guests stand in a group around her. The merrymaking has developed into the party thrower and one of her invites getting stark nakkid with the mutual intention of rodgerring each other into frenzy.
They are banging away to the astonishment and curiosity of their audience, when hubby comes home catching the event.
"Christ, what's going on. What the hell is this. Get that man off of you. Get away from her you bastard".
Wifey looks up without hesitation apart from a little breathlessness and in a calm sincere, measured voice, and whilst the guy pays no attention but continues to give her one, she says,
"George Darling, what on earth is the matter with you? What are you talking about. What man. Where? Where? "
The husband finds himself standing frozen to the spot by the sheer audacity of the woman. She continues,
"Goodness George, go get a drink, you're making a fool of yourself in front of my guests"
Like I thought. You've got nothing.
Quote from stu:
Denial, deceit, lie.
...So there is this woman at home holding a party on the sun deck of her pool. A couple dozen invited party guests stand in a group around her. The merrymaking has developed into the party thrower and one of her invites getting stark nakkid with the mutual intention of rodgerring each other into frenzy.
They are banging away to the astonishment and curiosity of their audience, when hubby comes home catching the event.
"Christ, what's going on. What the hell is this. Get that man off of you. Get away from her you bastard".
Wifey looks up without hesitation apart from a little breathlessness and in a calm sincere, measured voice, and whilst the guy pays no attention but continues to give her one, she says,
"George Darling, what on earth is the matter with you? What are you talking about. What man. Where? Where? "
The husband finds himself standing frozen to the spot by the sheer audacity of the woman. She continues,
"Goodness George, go get a drink, you're making a fool of yourself in front of my guests"
Yeah, funny story. It kind of reminds me of evolutionists trying to tell people that
a. something (the universe) was created by nothing, and
b. put some hydrogen gas into an enclosed space for a few billion years and you never know what you might get. You just might get people, animals, trees, and all sorts of different things in the enclosure. All from hydrogen gas.
And the "scientists" are the wife and you followers are the husband, and all you husbands believe the wife!
Quote from stu:
ID would anyway mean the Universe was artificial. According to ID, the ID'er would itself need a designer. There would be no purely natural beginnings.
Yes, the designer needs a designer.
Both the designer of this "wonderful" universe, and it's design, are artificial.
The designer is in what is not artificial, your mind. And it is made by an idea, which it takes and runs with.
It was your idea.
And because the idea has to do with separation - ie. separate and independent entities - the idea has taken on a "life" of it's own. It likes it's "life" and is determined to design something that will preserve it's existence forever.
The "wonderful" universe it lets you "see" is simply every iteration of that idea played out to the hilt.
The idea creates a "wonderful" hell.
And the designer is the devil himself.
The devil is the idea of separation played out in every possible way.
The devil is artificial, and makes...but cannot create.
The devil is in your mind, and depends on it like a parasite depends on your body.
And uses the power of your mind against itself, in favor of it's continued existence.
So it is for the destruction of your mind, and this "wonderful" universe is the evidence of that...beginning with the "big bang"...a violent explosion.
As your mind is fragmented into bite sized pieces, "bodies" emerge with teeth for biting. And they are constantly gnashing.
Into one of these fragments the designer places "you". In this way, each of "you" have your own little kingdom of your own.
You are now the private owner of a parcel of mind-share. It is "yours" and all your thoughts are private within it.
Or so you think.
But a single body is not much of a kingdom, so you begin to fight for an aggregate of bodies, trying to get back what you lost in the fragmentation.
This appears in many forms as separation from abundance is played out in every possible configuration.
You think that you are making decisions, and thinking your own thoughts.
Little do you know you are a wind-up toy.
"Deja vu" is evidence that you are a wind-up toy, running the motions, feeling the feelings, thinking the thought patterns, exactly as you are pre-programmed to run.
The "devil" is a program that programs.
How it runs it's programs is the subject of this thread, and consumes the energies of "scientists".
Jesus
Quote from jem:
someone or thing who or which created the universe is by definition before time.
Yes, jem, you are right. You do have the ability to reason.
Quote from jem:
physics tells us, time as we know it,
began after the big bang.
Right again.
But the big bang was a reaction to a feeling in the designer.
Note that the reaction is a furious wall of fire, and a projection "outward" of seemingly everything.
In one sense, you abide in a "lake of fire", left over from this explosion. And each of your suns is an ocean of burning gas.
The "fire" is symbolic of the feeling of loss and guilt over an idea. And with fear comes fury. That idea, once again, is the idea of separation.
The feeling is much worse than losing your entire trading account in one day.
And when the one feeling this feeling has enormous power - like the Son of God - watch out.
Quote from jem:
When you are outside of time there may be know before. Consequently there is no reason the designer would need a designer.
Yes. Technically, there is no devil, no designer, and this universe never happened...because time can never take the place of eternity.
Eternity marches on while "time" was no more significant than a green flash at sunset. If you are not looking for a green flash, you would never see it.
Likewise, our Father never knew about time. Good thing, because to acknowledge it is to make it "real".
"Time" is a single instant, in which that instant of the idea of separation is replayed over and over and over again.
Time is a single "tick" within which are multiples of ticks.
Time is holographic.
Time is made linear by the feelings of guilt and grievances relative to the idea of separation.
This is because guilt requires a "past" in which a crime was committed, and needs a "future" in which retribution is expected, or when vengeance is hoped for.
This consciousness traps you "forever" as long as you agree with it. Forgiveness washes your consciousness clean, releasing you from linear time.
Quote from jem:
Consequently there is no reason the designer would need a designer.
First of all, you made the designer.
So you made the "devil", which is the idea of separation.
At that moment, God created the Holy Spirit and gave it to your mind to Answer all your questions.
So in one part of your mind you have the devil, and in another part, you have the Holy Spirit.
Your problem was the feelings associated with the idea of separation. They "burned" red hot.
The Holy Spirit was given to inform you that there is no separation, that you have not attacked God, and so you cannot be guilty. Therefore, no reason to feel the heat.
Instead you "listened" to the devil regarding solutions to your problem. And as he affirms you are guilty, you are more likely to agree to it's solutions.
It's solution was a place to hide and defend against the inevitable counter-attack that must come from God.
Such is this universe. Bodies buffer the heat, and your cool environments exist upon a thin mantle, under which still exists the hot churning symbols of guilt, chaos, and fury.
The devil also promised that you could become your own father, replacing our Father altogether.
And in a sick way, this universe seems to accomplish that, though it is impossible.
For this universe seems to make "you". This seems to be true whether you believe in atheistic evolution, or a God-did-it construct.
And the fact that you made the maker is deeply hidden. It is in denial deep in a newly invented level of mind called "subconscious". It works great, for what it was made for.
Not surprisingly, "God" reflects the conflicted nature of it's creatures - like son, like father. And the true God is long forgotten.
You made the devil and used it as co-creator of this universe. This is because you can make nothing without sharing an agreement. This is law in Heaven and on earth. So you "need" the devil as much as the devil needs your mind to exist in...and your belief in separation.
In agreement with the devil, an illusion, you "make" illusions as co-creators.
The devil basically gives you a Victoria's Secret catalogue and you order everything you want to see in your universe.
Then you go into massive denial.
The big bang symbolizes a massive denial of guilt as it is projected outward. Fear is the "stuff" all worlds and dimensions are made of.
The worlds turn as their inhabitants continue to project guilt upon their neighbors.
Only when you stop projecting and listen to the Holy Spirit instead, do you begin to "go home".
The Holy Spirit is given as your co-unmaker of what you made with the devil. He converts and uses everything you made to undo the damage. And everything you made must be given to Him to deal with. And with full cooperation, all is unmade. That is why this universe will "pass away"...just disappear.
That is why the body can be used for salvation. But it is not "saved" . Resurrection of bodies is merely a demonstration. It is symbolic of the resurrection of the sleeping mind that weaves a world out of dreams.
If you are truly awake, you will not taste death.
There is still only one problem. And despite all the different forms your problems take, there is only one solution.
Atonement denies separation.
Jesus