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
All that I can defend is your massive intellectual superiority. You are the greatest mind ever, the smartest, the best-est, and the nicest person who ever lived. You are the most interesting man in the world!
Quote from Turok:
LOL. You substitute a half page of prattle for a defense of your statement. It's clear then that you don't have one.
JB
Quote from stu:
So why would't the random behavior found in nature not be the design of random behavior. ?
Quote from yip1997:
It is possible but there is no scientific proof
It's self evident.
Should the random behavior found in nature not be the design of random behavior itself, then it is not random behavior
Were it at all possible random behavior found in nature was designed by something else,then it is not random behavior.
Why would you need scientific proof?
Of course it might well all lead to mental chaos , but that is scientifically proven anyway by The TrollZzzz behavior.
Behavior in nature is natural, following the laws and principles of nature's ways.
Human beings project a concept of random behavior onto this behavior which is simply natural behavior...not know to be random or planned, just known to be natural. Man is not perceiving deeper than nature, as every discover is just about the workings of nature, not the cause of nature.
Yet man is suggesting that randomness is the cause underlying nature, as if randomness existed as a force prior to the existence of nature.
This somehow became the default limited position and concept of modern mankind and is a mental concept that is projected upon the workings of nature. Fascinatingly, this projected concept on to nature of a random unguided and unplanned nature at work in all that constitutes nature's ways is supposedly the product of non random logical thinking by the human mind.
The truth is that a projection by the mind, an overlay of a human concept onto the workings of nature, is just that...a concept only and not a known truth.
Man's inability to find a pattern means that truthfully, independent of man's perceptions and thought there is no pattern?
Think about that. Logically, we are supposed to swallow ignorance of a pattern, ignorance of causation, ignorance of the mechanics of supposed random behavior as being an equivalent of knowledge that no pattern exists?
The blind man says "I can't see a pattern." Does that mean a pattern doesn't exist?
This particular blindness of projecting a human derived concept of random behavior as a truth is logically unfounded and logically unsupported.
Now, just because there is no logical foundation doesn't keep people from coming to their own conclusions and corresponding belief systems. That's what we do, we come to belief systems. The IDer has come to their belief system, the non IDer has come to their belief system, and both have made up their minds that they are seeing the "truth" of life.
Again, saying "I can't perceive a pattern" is not a logical equivalent of "there is no pattern."
The conclusion of "there is no pattern" on the basis of "I can't find a pattern" is the typical response of someone trying to convince themselves that they are right, not that they are seeking any particular truth.
If there has been a pattern of human history in the scientific exploration, it is the continual process of the discovery of deeper understanding of the workings of nature, yielding different conclusions along the way. Each conclusion is embraced with full faith, as the mind is fully "made up."
No one that I know has ever come up with a cogent testable theory as to why the nature of life would have its roots in random and unplanned happenings.
No one I know of has discovered a new law of nature, the random force.
Random is just a human concept projected onto the workings of nature...
The entire theory of evolution rests on the concept of predictability that random events happened in the past and are going to happen in the future. That constitutes a pattern of randomness, a programming of randomness which is being suggested as a scientific truth, yet when these random believers are asked to explain why this pattern of randomness exists...you hear pins dropping.
Human beings project a concept of random behavior onto this behavior which is simply natural behavior...not know to be random or planned, just known to be natural. Man is not perceiving deeper than nature, as every discover is just about the workings of nature, not the cause of nature.
Yet man is suggesting that randomness is the cause underlying nature, as if randomness existed as a force prior to the existence of nature.
This somehow became the default limited position and concept of modern mankind and is a mental concept that is projected upon the workings of nature. Fascinatingly, this projected concept on to nature of a random unguided and unplanned nature at work in all that constitutes nature's ways is supposedly the product of non random logical thinking by the human mind.
The truth is that a projection by the mind, an overlay of a human concept onto the workings of nature, is just that...a concept only and not a known truth.
Man's inability to find a pattern means that truthfully, independent of man's perceptions and thought there is no pattern?
Think about that. Logically, we are supposed to swallow ignorance of a pattern, ignorance of causation, ignorance of the mechanics of supposed random behavior as being an equivalent of knowledge that no pattern exists?
The blind man says "I can't see a pattern." Does that mean a pattern doesn't exist?
This particular blindness of projecting a human derived concept of random behavior as a truth is logically unfounded and logically unsupported.
Now, just because there is no logical foundation doesn't keep people from coming to their own conclusions and corresponding belief systems. That's what we do, we come to belief systems. The IDer has come to their belief system, the non IDer has come to their belief system, and both have made up their minds that they are seeing the "truth" of life.
Again, saying "I can't perceive a pattern" is not a logical equivalent of "there is no pattern."
The conclusion of "there is no pattern" on the basis of "I can't find a pattern" is the typical response of someone trying to convince themselves that they are right, not that they are seeking any particular truth.
If there has been a pattern of human history in the scientific exploration, it is the continual process of the discovery of deeper understanding of the workings of nature, yielding different conclusions along the way. Each conclusion is embraced with full faith, as the mind is fully "made up."
No one that I know has ever come up with a cogent testable theory as to why the nature of life would have its roots in random and unplanned happenings.
No one I know of has discovered a new law of nature, the random force.
Random is just a human concept projected onto the workings of nature...
The entire theory of evolution rests on the concept of predictability that random events happened in the past and are going to happen in the future. That constitutes a pattern of randomness, a programming of randomness which is being suggested as a scientific truth, yet when these random believers are asked to explain why this pattern of randomness exists...you hear pins dropping.
Quote from stu:
It's self evident.
Should the random behavior found in nature not be the design of random behavior itself, then it is not random behavior
Were it at all possible random behavior found in nature was designed by something else,then it is not random behavior.
Why would you need scientific proof?
Of course it might well all lead to mental chaos , but that is scientifically proven anyway by The TrollZzzz behavior.
Quote from stu:
It's self evident.
Should the random behavior found in nature not be the design of random behavior itself, then it is not random behavior
Were it at all possible random behavior found in nature was designed by something else,then it is not random behavior.
The behavior that appears random to us right now might not be a true random behavior once we discovered the underlying principle.
What is the definition of a pure randomness?
If the nature of living creatures is to spontaneously, causelessly, ceaselessly, randomly mutate, and if this process is consistent among all life forms from the first life form till now...then we have a very rigid pattern in place.
If there is a rigid pattern, then it is not truly random, it is programmed and static. When have we ever seen an evolutionist take a position that evolutionary process would not happen in the future?
The naturalists will fall back on warm stupid feeling that comes from the observation of the programmed behavior as an effect which is simply "natural" and not the product of any external agency or intelligence.
They don't like the deeper questions that they can't answer, and may possibly involve the concept of a Designer and a designed nature.
It would seem that the goal for the naturalist is more for contentment with a non God philosophy and is greater than the uncertainty that would come from having an open mind and sticking to only that which is logically known to be true and only true by having falsified logically anything which might be thought as untrue...
If a small fish is content to swim in a small pool, they will never know what they would find upstream...
If there is a rigid pattern, then it is not truly random, it is programmed and static. When have we ever seen an evolutionist take a position that evolutionary process would not happen in the future?
The naturalists will fall back on warm stupid feeling that comes from the observation of the programmed behavior as an effect which is simply "natural" and not the product of any external agency or intelligence.
They don't like the deeper questions that they can't answer, and may possibly involve the concept of a Designer and a designed nature.
It would seem that the goal for the naturalist is more for contentment with a non God philosophy and is greater than the uncertainty that would come from having an open mind and sticking to only that which is logically known to be true and only true by having falsified logically anything which might be thought as untrue...
If a small fish is content to swim in a small pool, they will never know what they would find upstream...
Quote from yip1997:
The behavior that appears random to us right now might not be a true random behavior once we discovered the underlying principle.
What is the definition of a pure randomness?
Quote from yip1997:
I like the idea of guided selection, that i proposed in my dissertation long time ago.
It is possible that the random behavior found in nature is designed but there is no scientific proof of the design yet.
Quote from yip1997:
The behavior that appears random to us right now might not be a true random behavior once we discovered the underlying principle.
What is the definition of a pure randomness?
So which is it to be, random or not random behavior ?
If you say it's random one minute then it's not random the next, you'll just end up sounding like The TrollZzz. Chaotic, confused and contradictory
http://geneticsevolution.suite101.com/article.cfm/evolution_is_not_a_random_process
Evolution is not a random process...according to scientists.
So if it is deterministic, what determined that nature would follow this pattern of deterministic behavior?
Now we will see the circular argument, the infinite dribble from natureboy "it is natural because it is nature."
He does love those circular arguments...where he makes a statement then uses the same statement as proof of the truth of the statement.
Why that nature, and not another nature, unless it was predetermined to have that nature...
Everything has a nature, but why one nature over another nature?
Oh yeah, just random luck...
Too funny.
Evolution is not a random process...according to scientists.
So if it is deterministic, what determined that nature would follow this pattern of deterministic behavior?
Now we will see the circular argument, the infinite dribble from natureboy "it is natural because it is nature."
He does love those circular arguments...where he makes a statement then uses the same statement as proof of the truth of the statement.
Why that nature, and not another nature, unless it was predetermined to have that nature...
Everything has a nature, but why one nature over another nature?
Oh yeah, just random luck...
Too funny.
Quote from stu:
So which is it to be, random or not random behavior ?
If you say it's random one minute then it's not random the next, you'll just end up sounding like The TrollZzz. Chaotic, confused and contradictory
Attachments
Quote from stu:
So which is it to be, random or not random behavior ?
If you say it's random one minute then it's not random the next, you'll just end up sounding like The TrollZzz. Chaotic, confused and contradictory
I believed and still believe in intelligent design. I just made a point that there is no "scientific" evidence to prove/disprove it.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
http://geneticsevolution.suite101.com/article.cfm/evolution_is_not_a_random_process
Evolution is not a random process...according to scientists.
So if it is deterministic, what determined that nature would follow this pattern of deterministic behavior?
Now we will see the circular argument, the infinite dribble from natureboy "it is natural because it is nature."
He does love those circular arguments...
Why that nature, and not another nature, unless it was predetermined to have that nature...
Everything has a nature, but why one nature over another nature?
Oh yeah, just random luck...
Too funny.
When a process is not random, it doesn't mean that the process is deterministic.
We including myself have used the term loosely. Is a stochastic process "pure" random? Is a guassian process pure "random"? A pure random process cannot be defined. One can only define a non-random process.
Whenever we can describe a process in finite length of words, it is not a "pure" random process.
Sound like we can define it in the following way - "A random process is one that cannot be described in finite length of words" but the definition is wrong. Logically it is correct but this type of questions fall outside the scope of logics.