Intelligent Design

@Sound4People,

Sound4People wrote:

Ah. I said gravity was a higher power and it was determining our evolution. No I can say with 100% undenyable creationist logic that wasn't sarcastic. Dude... of course its sarcasm. I was merely ridiculing IDers.

Why do you think you are smarter or more intellectual?, come on!! there are some people who absolutely believe in an ID that are much, much smarter than you

Now that is a truth in the absolute!!

anyway peace

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

And you would know this how? How do you even measure intelligence. And why am I not allowed to make fun of a position with people smarter than me. This would imply that you can't make fun of Nazism, Communism, Lamarckism, Islam, Christianity and virtually anything else. Rational, intelligent people hold irrational stupid beliefs.

1 Reply

@Sound4People,

Sound4People wrote:

And you would know this how? How do you even measure intelligence. And why am I not allowed to make fun of a position with people smarter than me. This would imply that you can't make fun of Nazism, Communism, Lamarckism, Islam, Christianity and virtually anything else. Rational, intelligent people hold irrational stupid beliefs.

Intelligent design is not stupid or irrational and you comments make me state what I stated, but hey don't take it too hard you might be right. It was not my intention to insult you, just to give another thought to the topic

And we can measure intelligence reasonably accurately, especially in the fields of cosmology, physics and astrophysics, which are my cup of tea

But am I highly intelligent, absolutely not, and if I can know this about myself why cant you do the same about yourself

We must know what we do not know and be humble enough to admit it

Peace

0 Replies

@Sound4People,

Sound4People;59170 wrote:

I'm not going to go point by point and refute you. That is unnecessary. You are making an assumption that we are the only life that can occur. This is just simply speculation. There's no evidence behind it. If life isn't like us, then it can't occur. Most of those statistics are from creationist sources and end up being not true, but even if they were that doesn't imply any sort of design. We evolved in this universe, to fit this universe and then you claim that this universe was designed from us, when it reality we were made from it so it would logically follow that we couldn't exist out of it. And that's all your pointing out.

I always relate this to Ayn Rand's philosophy. In order to see the evidence for it, you must assume it is true. This is not how reason works. You must provide evidence for a point so I can see that it is true. Everything you suggest can mean many things outside of design. Only if you assume design is true can you come to the conclusion that they imply design.

Where do you get the idea that those statistics were generated by false creationist sources? That's a pretty bold claim. I know the cosmological constant was developed by Einstein, a theist, but not a pious proponent of creationism. Atheist scientists actually translated the CC from Einstein's original assumption that the universe was static, and made it applicable to a dynamic universe. This is why estimations for it's exactness are conservative - they know the bigger the number, the more it hurts their case. Scientists as a whole are still cautious about accepting the legitimacy of the intelligent design claim. There are still more atheist scientists trying to disprove God as much as they can.

And as far as Ayn Rand goes, in the case of ID you do not have to accept anything as true until you've empirically observed it. As a matter of fact it would be encouraged, because this is where materialism and physicalism fails while design succeeds. These are principles that we observe. Not principles we make up, that we have to accept before they can be true. Truth isn't even relevant. These are facts that govern the properties of our universe. One does not have to assume design either, one can assume whatever they want. Even if they assume naturalism, the utter failure of Darwinism, or any form of materialistic gradual macroevolution makes the current popular scientific theory no more sustainable. When you look at other cases, like the astronomical factors that must coalesce for life even to be possible. Or the fact that DNA is in essence information, it becomes much more reasonable to assert that there is an intelligent cause behind the universe.

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall wrote:

Yes xris if there is a creator then it must be both eternal and infinite, so it is impossible to us tiny minute infinitesimal fleeting finite entities to ever comprehend this being in its entirety.

But even a cockroach becomes aware of us when we step on it, so maybe it is OK to believe this unimaginable mighty uncaused cause of all existence exists just like we do, if we exist why cant it?

It is early morning in SA I am awake at 3 o'clock in the morning and can not go to sleep

By the way xris, have you seen the mentalist Derren Brown on TV?. I am interested in your comments if you have seen him , he is really remarkable(sorry a bit off topic)

Peace

Yes i have seen him.pretty amazing stuff he does.

0 Replies

@Aphoric,

I wasn't saying the CC wasn't true. I was saying that if you changed it by some small amount the universe would be unable to support life might not be true. Those sorts of claims are usually not true, because they are from Creationist sources. Not that they all aren't. I acutally think if you looked at it you would find certain things that we couldn't exist if you changed them a small amount. We don't know the consequences of changing these things, so we can't possibly know that life couldn't exist. It may be rational to assume that we wouldn't exist, but we evolved in this universe, from this universe, so it would be a serious conundrum if we could survive outside of this universe (as if you changed the rules a bit).

I can not convince you that evolution happened. It is nearly impossible and if not impossible to convince someone, who came to a position with something other than reason, with reason that their position is wrong. I still am going to make fun of you.

You are saying that microevolution happens and Macroevolution doesn't. You are saying in a VERY literal sense that 1+1=2, but it's impossible for 1+1+1+1 to equal 4. That just can't happen.

Darwinism was a failure like anyother genius's theories including Newton and Einstein. It was the basis for what we discovered. As soon as Mendel became mainstream we had Neo-Darwinism. That was not true either. Eventually after Genetics a hundred years later we had the Theory of Evolution driven by natural selection after it was fully understood by genetics, but that wasn't even correct. Stephen Gould had to correct everyone before him. And now we have The Theory of Evolution driven by natural selection with an added touch of puncuated equilibria. This is how science works. It's a self correcting process.

You, my friend, are a hypocrite. You deny the very science that leads to you being able to talk to me over the internet and you expect scientists to keep improving your life after you spit in the face of what they hold sacred.

1 Reply

@Brandon Boyd,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sound4People
And you would know this how? How do you even measure intelligence. And why am I not allowed to make fun of a position with people smarter than me. This would imply that you can't make fun of Nazism, Communism, Lamarckism, Islam, Christianity and virtually anything else. Rational, intelligent people hold irrational stupid beliefs

If it is your intention to mock another persons belief that would equate to an offense against those that might hold dear these beliefs and would your suggestion that they are Irrational, and hold stupid is not nice or polite

Read this!! that is offensive to some people on the forum and "we are not here to trade insults" but to debate around topics like adults

Quote:

You, my friend, are a hypocrite. You deny the very science that leads to you being able to talk to me over the internet and you expect scientists to keep improving your life after you spit in the face of what they hold sacred.

No one calling me is a friend of mine.Tone down your rhetoric

To whom is this unpleasant remark directed at ? If you are suggesting I am a hypocrite I am very offended by that remark

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

I most certainly am calling you a hypocrite. And I provided my point. You would renouce the very science that allows us to speak to eachother, yet your still speaking. I think that is, by the very definition of hypocrite, a hypocrite.

Ah, but you see. I explained why I mock your beliefs rather than debate you. It is nearly impossible (infact it almost seems like it takes a miracle of God) to make someone who came to a conclusion outside of reason, to a different conclusion with reason. This is tied into my comment about Ayn Rand, but I won't get to that right now.

So much choices are to ignore you spouting the untruths that you spout or to ridicule your position. I choose the later. I do understand it's not necessarily your fault, but that does not negate the fact that your position is as absurd as flat-earthism, Neo-Lamarckism or Geocentrism. Anyone with any of these positions I would ridicule. I include creationism among these.

1 Reply

@thysin,

Alan, Sound4People, please stop slipping insults at each other. There's no need for that. This is a discussion about ID, let's keep in that way. Thank you both for understanding.

1 Reply

@Justin,

It is entirely not his fault, and I mean to say it is entirely my fault. And I was merely ridiculing his position. So if we are not free to ridicule someone's ridiculous position, then it is you who are flawed for not seeing the point to a free exchange, not I for making it.

1 Reply

@Sound4People,

Sound4People wrote:

It is entirely not his fault, and I mean to say it is entirely my fault. And I was merely ridiculing his position. So if we are not free to ridicule someone's ridiculous position, then it is you who are flawed for not seeing the point to a free exchange, not I for making it.

Oh, I'm sorry. I had no idea that this is what it was. I simply asked politely to stop the slippery insults and get back on topic.... My bad for being flawed. Oh well! I guess I wont be casting the first stone.

Now back on topic please!

0 Replies

@Sound4People,

Sound4People;59234 wrote:

I wasn't saying the CC wasn't true. I was saying that if you changed it by some small amount the universe would be unable to support life might not be true. Those sorts of claims are usually not true, because they are from Creationist sources. Not that they all aren't. I acutally think if you looked at it you would find certain things that we couldn't exist if you changed them a small amount. We don't know the consequences of changing these things, so we can't possibly know that life couldn't exist. It may be rational to assume that we wouldn't exist, but we evolved in this universe, from this universe, so it would be a serious conundrum if we could survive outside of this universe (as if you changed the rules a bit).

Uhh.. well, you sort of right. There are probably some physical properties that if changed, could still lead to life. However, there are some, that if they were altered even minutely, would lead to an inhabitable universe. Take the CC for example. I mean if it were large and negative, the universe would have recollapsed on itself almost instantly after the big bang. If electrons were 1/700ths larger or smaller, and fusion in stars didn't happen, we wouldn't get the heavy metals that form celestial bodies that make life possible. I mean if you just want to assume for the sake of argument that life could evolve in a completely different way given a completely different realm of physical properties and biological possibility, that's fine, but there wouldn't be any rational scientific value in doing so, so I'm not sure why you'd follow that logic anyway.

Sound4People;59234 wrote:

You are saying that microevolution happens and Macroevolution doesn't. You are saying in a VERY literal sense that 1+1=2, but it's impossible for 1+1+1+1 to equal 4. That just can't happen.

I'm not saying 1+1+1+1 can't equal 4. I'm saying that when juxtaposed with the Cambrian Explosion, the theory of gradual evolution claims that 1+1+1+1 = 400. now that just can't happen.

Sound4People;59234 wrote:

Darwinism was a failure like anyother genius's theories including Newton and Einstein. It was the basis for what we discovered. As soon as Mendel became mainstream we had Neo-Darwinism. That was not true either. Eventually after Genetics a hundred years later we had the Theory of Evolution driven by natural selection after it was fully understood by genetics, but that wasn't even correct. Stephen Gould had to correct everyone before him. And now we have The Theory of Evolution driven by natural selection with an added touch of puncuated equilibria. This is how science works. It's a self correcting process.

hahahahahha lmfao. You actually made fun of ID and subjected punctuated equilibrium as the answer that saves the theory of Evolution?

First of all, punctuated equilibrium is an untestable, unfalsifiable claim. Now, if you can accept something like that in your theory for the origin of the species, what's all the hulabaloo about ID? Oh right, that it's untestable and therefore shouldn't be considered science. But that's fine, go ahead and make it work for your "scientific" theory. This theory has been roundly criticized, most prevalently by evolutionary biologists, and at this point only leads to more scientific questions. The fact is that Darwinism is still a philosophy in search of convincing empirical data to back it up.

You ought to be sharing the self-correcting principle of science with your neo-darwinist colleagues, not myself.

Sound4People;59234 wrote:

You, my friend, are a hypocrite. You deny the very science that leads to you being able to talk to me over the internet and you expect scientists to keep improving your life after you spit in the face of what they hold sacred.

I could say the same thing to you, given my standpoint on the issue (except without the convoluted second bit about scientists holding things sacred).

And you think my reasoning is ridiculous.

1 Reply

@Aphoric,

Hey, I never said at all that Punctuated Equilbria saves evolution. It never needed to be saved. Stephen Gould actually just pointed out everyone had been wrong up to his pointl; all he said is that evolution would be in shorter bursts with a long peroid of time inbetween when things weren't evolving, and this is what the fossil record shows; Really all he means is evolution doesn't happen at a constant rate. And those responses weren't to you, they were to the other guy who said that darwinism was flawed. Neo-Darwinism died out a long time ago also. Evolution is not criticized by biologists at all. It is taught by the leading evolutionary biologists in every accredited university that has a biology department. ID, Creationism and other Pseudo-Sciences aren't.

Please stop talking about things you know nothing about. The Cambrian explosion did not take a short time. Rather it took 80-90 million years. The reason this happened was a severe natural diaster that happened right before it. Evolution predicts over the next hundred or so million years there would be increase of the rate of diversity. That's exactly what happened.

Your reasoning is ridiculous. I pointed out the flaw and I have yet to see anyone respond accordingly. And all the TOE says is 1+1+1+1=4. That's all it's ever said.

And justin, that was hilarious. I'm still laughing (I mean that sincerely). Stop being so funny, funny-man Razz

.

2 Replies

@Sound4People,

Sound4People;59282 wrote:

Hey, I never said at all that Punctuated Equilbria saves evolution. It never needed to be saved. Stephen Gould actually just pointed out everyone had been wrong up to his pointl; all he said is that evolution would be in shorter bursts with a long peroid of time inbetween when things weren't evolving, and this is what the fossil record shows; Really all he means is evolution doesn't happen at a constant rate. And those responses weren't to you, they were to the other guy who said that darwinism was flawed. Neo-Darwinism died out a long time ago also. Evolution is not criticized by biologists at all. It is taught by the leading evolutionary biologists in every accredited university that has a biology department. ID, Creationism and other Pseudo-Sciences aren't.

lol, dude, what are you talking about? You yourself said evolution didn't need to be saved, and now you're saying Stephen Gould basically pointed out that our assumptions on evolution have been wrong up to this point. Well, the only significant contribution Stephen Gould has made to this theory is the notion of punctuated equilibrium. Well, punctuated equilibrium has failed to provide a truly satisfactory solution to the problem of evolution, and has been generally criticized by evolutionary biologists. Just because they teach it doesn't mean they don't highlight it's weaknesses, what with it being a science department and all. I did say Darwinism is flawed, so the response might as well have been to me.

Sound4People;59282 wrote:

Please stop talking about things you know nothing about. The Cambrian explosion did not take a short time. Rather it took 80-90 million years. The reason this happened was a severe natural diaster that happened right before it. Evolution predicts over the next hundred or so million years there would be increase of the rate of diversity. That's exactly what happened.

First, 80-90 million years in the grand scheme of the history of the earth is a short time, especially in contrast to the hundreds of millions of years that preceded it without any significant biological developments other than a few jellyfish, worms, etc. Also, either you didn't know it, or you're strategically omitting the fact that these developments in the plant and animal kingdom first appeared early on in the Cambrian period (most show up in the first 20 million years).

You attempt to explain this with punctuated equilibrium. Well, while it does account for these sudden changes, as I've already pointed out, nobody has been able to successfully account for punctuated equilibrium.

Sound4People;59282 wrote:

Your reasoning is ridiculous. I pointed out the flaw and I have yet to see anyone respond accordingly. And all the TOE says is 1+1+1+1=4. That's all it's ever said.

And that is what is wrong with the TOE. While evolution presents the origin of the species being 1+1+1+1 equaling 4, when at the same point it should be equaling 4 (the reasonable amount of variation alloted for by the theory of gradual evolution) it is equaling 400 (i.e the cambrian explosion, irriducibly complex systems, and DNA). While the TOE makes sense as far as 1+1=2 goes, it has yet to empirically establish that 1+1+1+1 = Humans. That's all I ever said.

1 Reply

@Sound4People,

Sound4People;59282 wrote:

Evolution is not criticized by biologists at all. It is taught by the leading evolutionary biologists in every accredited university that has a biology department. ID, Creationism and other Pseudo-Sciences aren't.

True. However, that's because, for the most part, science is taught, and university science departments are run, by scientism believers. Go to some Christian universities and you will find ID, creationism, etc. put forth as true, and Darwinism as not. Bias there too.

In case you think I am making up the word "scientism" here's a link for you, and a quote from that article that represents what I agree with most:

"[scientism] is used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things;
It is used to denote a border-crossing violation in which the theories and methods of one (scientific) discipline are inappropriately applied to another (scientific or non-scientific) discipline and its domain. Examples of this second usage is to label as scientism any attempt to claim science as the only or primary source of human values (a traditional domain of ethics), or as the source of meaning and purpose (a traditional domain of religion and related worldviews)." Scientism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just so you know, I don't think either the creationist-ID or typical Darwinist account presents the facts objectively.

0 Replies

@thysin,

Ah, again Wikipedia saves a conversation... what would we ever do without that God-given bastion of truth?

The label of scientism is one that's pejoratively used by those who cast themselves in distinction to it, and who rather than confronting their own biases try to excuse them by painting others as biased.

"Scientism" isn't a system of belief, except insofar as people in science accept that evidence comes a priori and conclusions follow.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;59311 wrote:

Ah, again Wikipedia saves a conversation... what would we ever do without that God-given bastion of truth?

I agree that the Wikipedia isn't to be mindlessly trusted; on the other hand, when someone writing there accurately describes something, there is no reason to automatically dismiss it either. I could have cited other sources, but being quite familiar with the term, I thought the Wiki author did a good job.

However, if you don't like his description, you can Google the term and find plenty of references to it, check out a few articles from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy where it comes up http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=scientism ,or read a book or two on the subject . . . Science and scientism in nineteenth ... - Google Book Search , The Unraveling of Scientism ... - Google Book Search

You should have specifically refuted the Wiki author rather than generalize about the Wikipedia. I doubt you will find many who disagree with him however.

Aedes;59311 wrote:

The label of scientism is one that's pejoratively used by those who cast themselves in distinction to it, and who rather than confronting their own biases try to excuse them by painting others as biased.

It seems you may not be totally familiar with the term. It is not always used pejoratively. For example, Michael Shermer writing in Scientific American has said:

"Scientism is a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science."

There are many who are proud to say they are scientism adherents.

Now, in regard to MY biases, as I assume you are referring to, what exactly would they be? I love science, study science, believe in science, practice science . . . what more can I do?

However, I do not go on to think that because science is so successful at revealing physicalness, that it either means science is the epistemology to be applied to all matters of study, or that physicalness is all that exists. But that is how the devoted scientism believer views the world; that is, he keeps an empirical filter in place that automatically rejects all that science can't verify. Doesn't that virtually guarantee a biased perspective?

Aedes;59311 wrote:

"Scientism" isn't a system of belief, except insofar as people in science accept that evidence comes a priori and conclusions follow.

Of course, a priori belief is an epistemological enemy no matter what the belief system, whether science or religion or politics or . . .

But if you are suggesting there isn't a hard core scientism cult out there banding together to defeat the evil creationists (and other nonsense), then it's hard to believe you are observing the same Western culture I am.

Maybe you think I doubt the abilities of science, but to the contrary, I have genuine faith in it to do what it has proven it can do. But I do not, unlike blind faith scientism devotees, mindlessly accept the incessant physicalism inferences or outright claims fed to the public by scientists who are hardly neutral in their view toward reality.

To make it clear, I'm not talking about how scientists conduct science, I am talking about those scientists, as scientism believers, who communicate to the public with an attitude they have all the evidence needed to conclude creation -- from the BB and Earth to the evolution of life and consciousness -- is solely the result of physical/mechanical processes. I say their a priori philosophy gets in the way of objectively presenting the facts.

The truth is, they use an epistemology that ONLY reveals physicalness, they ONLY study physicalness, and then they wonder why they ONLY find physicalness! Now really, how smart is that?

0 Replies

@Sound4People,

Sound4People

Quote:

So much choices are to ignore you spouting the untruths that you spout or to ridicule your position. I choose the later. I do understand it's not necessarily your fault, but that does not negate the fact that your position is as absurd as flat-earthism, Neo-Lamarckism or Geocentrism. Anyone with any of these positions I would ridicule. I include creationism among these. This

Please indicate to the rest of the forum to whom you are directing your insulting comments at.

As for me I will not respond from now on to any of your posts and make you the very first person on my ignore list.

0 Replies

@Aphoric,

First of all Punctuated Equilibria is virtually entirely accepted now. Stephen Gould merely pointed out that evolution doesn't happen at one steady rate. It never needed to be saved. Einstein pointed out that Newton was wrong and Newton pointed out that Galleo was wrong and Galleo pointed out that Copernicus was wrong, but not a single one of these physicists was totally wrong on what they believed. Stephen Gould Merely did the same with Darwin. Never needed to be saved. There is enough empirical evidence for the TOE by means of natural selection, and Gould came up with his theory because the fossil record showed short bursts of evolution followed by slower peroids. Genetics shows this too. It is not untestable at all. He came up with it because the evidence fits.

I wasn't going to explain this but I guess I have to. Well whatever. The rate of change in diversity goes up over time, it also goes up during peroids after huge disasters as it is more difficult for a creature to survive. Anytime there is reproduction with environmental attrition and variation, evolution happens. More reproduction or environmental attrition or variation will result in a greater rate of evolution. Take fruit flies. Easy to evolve because their generation is about a day long meaning they can go through 200 generations in 200 days. It's the exact same with environmental attrition. You kill off a larger percentage of something by one means, they will grow more and more resistant to that one thing. And Animals developed at least 400 million years before the Cambrian explosion. Plants have a similar amount of time before the Cambrian explosion. That's a werid myth from creationists because I have no idea where it came from. Take any intro to bio class and they go over the developement of plant and animal life. And Punctuated equilbria deals with isolated population not the Cambrian explosion.

P.S. Einstein was not a theist. He said very clearly he believed in Spinoza's God. Spinoza is a pantheist. It logically follows, Einstein was a Pantheist. This isn't even close to theism.

2 Replies

@Sound4People,

Quote:

P.S. Einstein was not a theist. He said very clearly he believed in Spinoza's God. Spinoza is a pantheist. It logically follows, Einstein was a Pantheist. This isn't even close to theism.

[/QUOTE]

Again I plead with you please indicate to whom you posts are directed at so that members can dialogue with you in a meaningful way.

And try to be polite it is not nice to tell people that they are sprouting nonsense are hypocrites, uninformed and by implication liars and stupid.

I will make one more attempt to dialogue with you because I can read you are very informed about this topic at least. You have the right to disagree with me or anyone else in the strongest terms and still be polite about it Try it!

"Einstein was an atheist", he said , if he had to choose a god it would be the god of Spinoza, by the way "Spinoza is long dead"

Spinoza believed in a remote god who did not interfere with its creation, he did not like the idea of a personal god

Check your facts?

If I follow your logic then the fruit flies should be the highest life form of earth by now due to their rapid evolution, in a year or so they could evolve into intelligent monsters. But they are basically unchanged from time immemorial

What is accepted today is nonsense tomorrow

You don't need to explain the process of evolution to the rest of us, it might surprise you that some members on this forum are professionals in the field of evolution and genetics and you are sprouting(your terminology) or preaching to the converted.

I am more of a physicist/scientist/enigneer admittedly not an expert in evoiltion, but I have a need to learn and become informed in as many topics I can in my short life span on earth

Paul is one!

Hopefully peace

0 Replies

Intelligent Design

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know