Intelligent Design is not creationism

[tradestrong]

Quote from powerfade:

+1

The other one that I love, which the religious fundamentalists in this thread are so fond of, is

'Can you prove that God does not exist? You can't? Well, then, that's proof that God exists!'

Ahhh...yes. I get a kick out of that argument too.

This famous fable highlights the entire creationist frame of mind:

"A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

 

[jem]

Quote from smilingsynic:

Specious reasoning.

You are bringing in a red herring here. First, there is no scientific evidence of a designer/creator. Second, you are trying to make it personal by asking US what evidence we bring. It is not about us; it is about the scientific evidence, of which there is none.

I would agree, nevertheless, that many respected scientists are of the OPINION that there is an intelligent designer. But the fact that scientists hold an opinion does not necessarily make it scientific, now, does it?

You have no idea if these guys have scientific evidence or not. As knowledge gets more complex you need more training to evaluate the facts.

When a court relies on a scientist for evidence are you calling that an improper appeal to authority?

You are not qualified to critique the evidence.

I have posted the statements of many scientists. Not a single person has attacked the merits of their science. We have seen piss poor logic. Mis leading statistical arguments and clintonesque twists of the pure english used by top scholars.

I proffered scientific scholars - your side proffers self aggrandizing appeals supported by inferior opinions.

When you proffer science to combat science you will have a true debate.

 

[tradestrong]

Quote from jem:

You have no idea if these guys have scientific evidence or not. As knowledge gets more complex you need more training to evaluate the facts.

When a court relies on a scientist for evidence are you calling that an improper appeal to authority?

You are not qualified to critique the evidence.

I have posted the statements of many scientists. Not a single person has attacked the merits of their science. We have seen piss poor logic. Mis leading statistical arguments and clintonesque twists of the pure english used by top scholars.

I proffered scientific scholars - your side proffers self aggrandizing appeals supported by inferior opinions.

When you proffer science to combat science you will have a true debate.

Jem...you are so clueless on this topic. It's turtles all the way down? Right Jem?

Two can play this game. The old "God was before time so God didn't need a creator" argument...huh? Well how about this then. What if God actually exists in another world with different physics from which time is not a dimension? What if then that God was actually created by another God (called God 2.0) that lives outside of the physical constraints of God 1.0's world. Why stop there. Add in God 3.0 that lives outside of the physic constraints of God 2.0. Ad infinitium.

If you know jack shit about physics, then you'd also know that time is a constraint of the phsyics of the world we live in. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever that another physical world can't exist with a completely different set of physics foreign to our world. which doesn't include time. In fact, there is NO REASON that there are not an infinite number of universes with all completely different physics.

What you are demonstrating is the biggest logical flaw in existence. You ASSUME that our physical world is unique and the only possible world that life could evolve in. There is absolutely no logical reason that there couldn't be millions, or billions, or trillions.......of different universes with different physics and all supporting life. Now imagine all those "flatlanders" coming to the same conclusion that they all live in intelligently designed universes, that their physical rules are the only possible rules to support life. Imagine a trillion*trillion different universes with life in each one thinking they are unique. The would determine that the chances are astronomical for their one set of rules to have occured in the first shot at being 1 in a trillion*trillion. Oh, it's impossible they say. It would require God to create it.

Ah ha. In reality the chances of life evolving in this scenario is a trillion*trillion/trillion*trillion. In other words, the chances in this example are actually 100% that life would evolve ranomly. Quite a different set of conclusions there...huh?

Sorry, but that mathematical argument that you use (which I've heard a half million times before) is complete and utter bullshit founded on zero logical validity.

 

[neophyte321]

Quote from tradestrong:

and another statement of nothing. I was willing to believe in the tooth fairy when I was 5 years old. It didn't require logic, proof or facts. It only required an irrational belief in something. Nothing more and nothing less.

true enough, i won't argue my statement wasn't vacuous ...

but look around ... its everywhere and unavoidable

 

[I am...]

Quote from tradestrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Hinduism began with a right perception, and devolved into confusion, just like Christianity.
The original teaching begins with the perception of non-duality, as expressed in Advaita_Vedanta, and well propounded by Adi_Shankara.

Non-dual perception discerns between reality, and the world of time, space, form, and change.
Non-dual perception sees that the world does not exist...that existence is a farce.

Looking deeper, non-dual perception sees that the world is founded upon a rediculous premise.
Whether it is founded upon the back of an elephant or a turtle, it is equally rediculous.
These are symbols of the rediculousness of the world's premise.
Because the premise the world is built upon is utterly false, so is the world.
So the world is 'not there'.
An illusion is a belief in what is not there.

The little old lady who said the world is a flat plate on the back of a tortoise is equal to the scientist who believes in a single big bang, Newtonian physics, time, energy and matter.
Neither are true.
The one speaks of the rediculousness of the illusion.
The other speaks for it's reality.

Jesus

 

[tradestrong]

Quote from I am...:

Hinduism began with a right perception, and devolved into confusion, just like Christianity.
The original teaching begins with the perception of non-duality, as expressed in Advaita_Vedanta, and well propounded by Adi_Shankara.

Non-dual perception discerns between reality, and the world of time, space, form, and change.
Non-dual perception sees that the world does not exist...that existence is a farce.

Looking deeper, non-dual perception sees that the world is founded upon a rediculous premise.
Whether it is founded upon the back of an elephant or a turtle, it is equally rediculous.
These are symbols of the rediculousness of the world's premise.
Because the premise the world is built upon is utterly false, so is the world.
So the world is 'not there'.
An illusion is a belief in what is not there.

The little old lady who said the world is a flat plate on the back of a tortoise is equal to the scientist who believes in a single big bang, Newtonian physics, time, energy and matter.
Neither are true.
The one speaks of the rediculousness of the illusion.
The other speaks for it's reality.

Jesus

Substance, substance, substance. Look, I'm not going to criticize somebody for having a belief in the supernatural or in the Easter Bunny. But don't confuse substance with personal illusion. I'm sorry, but again, you've said essentially nothing at all. You've used flowery language and visions of unicorns frollicking in the grass, but you haven't really said anything with any real substance.

Don't confuse philsophy with hard science. A fact is a fact and a fact is not a philosophy.

 

[I am...]

Quote from tradestrong:

Substance, substance, substance. Look, I'm not going to criticize somebody for having a belief in the supernatural or in the Easter Bunny. But don't confuse substance with personal illusion. I'm sorry, but again, you've said essentially nothing at all. You've used flowery language and visions of unicorns frollicking in the grass, but you haven't really said anything with any real substance.

Don't confuse philsophy with hard science. A fact is a fact and a fact is not a philosophy.

Don't confuse me with the facts.

The world is built on faith.
Faith is the evidence of things hoped for,
the substance of things unseen.

What you call solid, physical matter is a faith-based platform,
upon which the macabre back-and-forth dance of victim and victimizer is played out.
It is not seen as faith. It is seen as "fact".
It's ancient origins have long since been denied, repressed, and forgotten.

Jesus

 

[tradestrong]

Quote from neophyte321:

true enough, i won't argue my statement wasn't vacuous ...

but look around ... its everywhere and unavoidable

Here's the essence of the problem though and believers of creationism are the biggest perpertrators of this prolem.

Sorry if this example seems brash or ridiculous, but it's the core of the disconnect.

If I drive my car 50 mph, I am driving my car 50 mph no matter how anybody wants to "distort" that fact. A physical measurement tool on my vehicle will state the speed of which the physics are well understood. A radar gun using a different set of methodologies but equally valid in using the physics of our world to measure that same car will independently confirm my speed. It is UNDENIABLY FACT that my car is going that speed.

Now somebody else can come along and say that if the stars align in a certain manner and if the spirits of the underworld have taken over those devices and are controlling them and that my mind is being controlled by fairies in the 150th dimension on the planet Zoya in an alternative universe. They can BELIEVE that and convincingly trick other people by throwing a whole lot of absolute nothing at them to convince them. The facts are then thrown out the window by those believers. they PURPOSEFULLY ignore the obvious facts and instead let their own biases consume their thoughts until the point where they are unable to communicate rationally with others on the topic. Now this person wouldn't be able to effectively communicate with a radar gun designer, because the engineer will be talking in absolutes while the "believer" will be talking in pretty language that has no relevance to the actual facts of how a radar gun works.

That is the core problem with the obsession of ID. It purposefully obfuscates facts and tries to distort the hardcore substance of it by using random language.

Human beings are not rational animals. Our brains are not equipped to accurately reflect logic. What our brains have evolved to efficiently do is to apply patterns and symbols to objects. This helped our ancestors compete and survive in a world of which there was no concept of logic.

As a result, the modern human is still trying to use our irrational pattern matching brains to understand our physical world...hence the man-made creation of the concept of God. It's much easier to apply an archetype being to a world of which we had very little understanding. This help "explain" the uncomprehensible. What it doesn't mean is that there is any core of truth to that creation of our mind.

As a result, humans are still trying to somehow align this concept of God with our physical world and any new understandings and insights we get into it. The inevitable result of this is fitting the square peg into the round circle and a piece-meal mess of an illogical combination of Intelligent Design somehow coexisting with Evolution.

It's absurd.

 

[tradestrong]

Quote from I am...:

Don't confuse me with the facts.

The world is built on faith.
Faith is the evidence of things hoped for,
the substance of things unseen.

What you call solid, physical matter is a faith-based platform,
upon which the macabre back-and-forth dance of victim and victimizer is played out.
It is not seen as faith. It is seen as "fact".
It's ancient origins having long been forgotten, denied, and repressed.

Jesus

Look, I understand that you're a lost cause on this issue. You've effectively brainwashed yourself into an irrational belief system that you somehow try to fit into this real world. I'm not going to change your muddied mind or "enlighten" you to your inability to align your personal biases with scientific facts. My statements here are mainly to expose your irrationality for others that may be sucked into the depths of believing in unicorns and fairies.

 

[I am...]

Quote from tradestrong:

Look, I understand that you're a lost cause on this issue. You've effectively brainwashed yourself into an irrational belief system that you somehow try to fit into this real world. I'm not going to change your muddied mind or "enlighten" you to your inability to align your personal biases with scientific facts. My statements here are mainly to expose your irrationality for others that may be sucked into the depths of believing in unicorns and fairies.

Perhaps I should take that as a compliment.
This years scientific fact is next year's debunked theory.
I align most closely with quantum physics, as opposed to Newtonian physics.
You are given light to "observe".
It will take the form of wave or particle for you,
forming the basis of everything you think to be solid matter, with space inbetween masses.
Depending on how you percieve light, you will see yourself as a unicorn, a fairy, an elf...or, as a man.
It is all the same.
It is faith-based perception...a way of observing reality - Light - as you wish.
I simply say, "do not hide your light under a bushel".

Jesus